Jharkhand High Court
Debabrata Dasgupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:35390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3650 of 2019
---------
Debabrata Dasgupta, aged about 66 years, son of Late Chittaranjan Dasgupta, resident of-K-4/34, Sutlej Block, Siroman Nagar, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
....Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government Of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House Building, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN- 834002
3. Principal, MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. -MGM, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831018 (Jharkhand) ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Das, Adv Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, A.C. to G.P.-III Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Adv
---------
C.A.V. ON: 30.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 27/11/2025
1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashment of Notification No.270(9) dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure 15) issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand; whereby and whereunder he has retrospectively superannuated the Petitioner with effect from 31.12.2013 (Annexure 15), and further direction for recovery 1 2025:JHHC:35390 of all monetary benefits drawn as salaries after 31.12.2013 including the benefits earned by the petitioner Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACP Scheme) which were extended to the petitioner with effect from November 2018 vide Notification No.407(9) dated 01.11.2018.
The petitioner has also sought for quashment of the consequential order passed by the Principal, MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur vide letter No.MC/E-34/2019 dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure 16); whereby the petitioner was relieved from service treating to have superannuated retrospectively with effect from 31.12.2013. Brief Facts
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Tutor in Biochemistry on 25.08.1977 (Annexure 1) and subsequent thereto, he gave his joining on 3rd of September 1977 (Annexure 2).
It is relevant to mention herein that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the Regulations as contained in Letter No. F4-12/65-MPT dated 5th June, 1971 was in vogue, whereunder for appointment of Tutors in Non-Clinical Subject like Biochemistry, the minimum requisite qualification was Degree of M.Sc. in the concerned subject. The said qualification was sufficient for appointment in the posts of Tutor or Assistant Professor as well as Associate 2 2025:JHHC:35390 Professor. Under the said Regulations, the candidates so appointed were also entitled for being considered for promotion upto the post of Director.
4. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Professor vide promotion order dated 05.07.1983 (Annexure 3). After creation of Medical Teaching Cadre, services of all teaching employees of MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, were regularized/approved by the State Government after due approval from of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha as well as Department of Finance, vide Notification No.415(17) dated 26.08.1998 with effect from 01.10.1979.
Despite the fact that the petitioner became entitled for promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 04.09.1983, he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor vide Notification No.156(2)/Health, Ranchi dated 16.06.2004 with effect from 05.07.1988 (Annexure 5).
While the petitioner was so officiating, the State Government vide Notification No.254(7-A) dated 17.07.2010 (Annexure 6) enhanced the age of superannuation of all medical teachers of Medical Education Cadre as well as the Teachers of RINPAS, Ranchi from 60 years to 62 years. The benefit of the same was extended to the petitioner as the 3 2025:JHHC:35390 petitioner was also a Medical Teacher.
Subsequently, vide Resolution No.283(7-A) dated 23.07.2011 (Annexure 6/1), the age of superannuation of all members of the Teaching Cadre of Medical Colleges were enhanced from 60 years to 65 years and the benefit of the said notification was also similarly extended to the petitioner.
Subsequently again, vide resolution bearing no.36(9) dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure 6/2), the age of superannuation of all members of the Teaching Cadre of the Medical Colleges was enhanced from 65 to 67 years and the benefit of the same was also extended to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the State Government had previously come out with a corrigendum bearing No.79(11) dated 23.06.2012 (Annexure-
7), wherein it was clarified that the benefit of the initial notification bearing No.283(7-A) dated 23.07.2011 would apply to all Medical Officers, Dentists and all Medical Teachers of the Medical Education Cadre/Officers posted in all Medical Colleges and Hospitals in the State of Jharkhand.
It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner that while in service the petitioner was granted the benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme after the same was adopted by the State of Jharkhand. However, 4 2025:JHHC:35390 despite the fact that the petitioner became entitled to the 2nd Upgradation under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 05.07.1988 i.e. the date when the petitioner became due for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the 3rd Upgradation with effect from 05.07.1994 and the 4th Upgradation with effect from 05.07.2001, the said benefits were not extended and the petitioner was discriminated, inasmuch as, the respondents vide Notification No.184(9) dated 26.04.2018 sanctioned and granted the 3rd financial upgradation under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2008 and the 4th Financial Upgradation with effect from 01.09.2008 but surprisingly, the benefits of upgradation were extended notionally. The petitioner seriously objected to the same which led to issuance of corrigendum/rectification letter No.407(9) dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure 10) wherein in the course of rectification, the respondents wrongly described the petitioner as a Doctor.
In compliance of the said rectification, the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand issued a pay scale in favour of the petitioner on 20.11.2018; whereby the rectified pay scale by inclusion of benefits granted under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme was issued with effect from 5 2025:JHHC:35390 01.04.2009. However, though the current financial benefits were extended to the petitioner, but the arrears were not released. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a detailed representation (Annexure 11).
In the meantime, the Accounts Office of the College also calculated the arrears of the petitioner at Rs.32,90,741/-, but the arrears were not paid to the petitioner on the pretext of non-allocation of fund (Annexure 12).
6. Learned counsel further contended that in the meantime, with an intent to deprive the petitioner of the benefits of DACP and the arrears calculated as mentioned hereinabove, a letter was written by the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent vide Memo No.MC/2026/19 dated 24.01.2019 seeking a clarification as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of DACP as he is not an MBBS Doctor (Annexure 13).
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner immediately moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2523 of 2019. Being outraged by filing of the said writ petition, the 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 01.04.2019 directed the petitioner to appear before him along with all supporting documents in respect to his claims for the benefits of DACP (Annexure 14).
Thereafter, all of a sudden, the 2nd Respondent vide 6 2025:JHHC:35390 Notification No.270(9) dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure 15), directed the 3rd Respondent to superannuate the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 31.12.2013 and in compliance thereof, the petitioner was made to superannuate retrospectively with effect from 31.12.2013 (Annexure 16).
7. Learned counsel strenuously contended that since the very inception the respondents were vindictive against the petitioner inasmuch as, though the similar benefits were allowed to other Non-MBBS Teacher like Dr. Amitav Choudhary, who was the Professor in the Department of Physiology and who was made to continue in service till attainment of age of 65 years (at the relevant time the age of superannuation was 65 years), but the petitioner was discriminated.
The petitioner has also brought on record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure 18); wherein also it was clarified that Faculty Members who were appointed before publication of the Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulation, 1998 (Amended), their appointments will be considered valid if they were appointed/promoted on the basis of the then prevalent rules of the Medical Council of India. Those Faculty Members after 7 2025:JHHC:35390 their retirement will also be considered eligible for the post from which they retired if otherwise eligible in terms of age of retirement.
8. Relying upon the aforesaid facts and contention, Ld. Counsel had concluded his arguments by submitting that in this background, the superannuation of the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 31.12.2013 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service till attainment of the age of 67 years.
9. The Respondents in this case have filed a counter affidavit and several supplementary counter affidavits.
In the counter affidavit the Respondents have mainly pleaded that the enhancement of age of superannuation was exclusively for Medical (MBBS) Teachers and the petitioner being an M.Sc. only could not have been granted the said benefit.
Similarly, it has also been stated that DACP was also exclusively for medical men either from Health Services or Medical Education Services. The petitioner being a non- medical man having only M.Sc. qualification, was not eligible to the grant of benefit of the said notification.
10. A detailed rejoinder was filed to the said counter 8 2025:JHHC:35390 affidavit wherein, more particularly in paragraph 5, details of various Non-MBBS Teachers were given who were not only appointed having M.Sc. Qualification, but also were granted promotion and benefits of age enhancement.
11. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondents on 12.02.2020 wherein it was stated that the benefits of extension of age of superannuation cannot be given to non-MBBS Teachers including Ph.D. and Non-Ph.D. Holders working in Medical Colleges. With respect to Dr. Amitav Chakravorty, it was stated that allowing him to continue in service upto the age of 65 years is a mistake and his case is being thoroughly examined.
Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondents dated 06.06.2020 wherein the respondents mentioned that the other non-MBBS Teacher namely Dr. Amitav Chakravorty who retired as a Professor of Physiology has been served with a show-cause notice to explain how he remained in service beyond age of 60 years and further pleaded that suitable action would be taken against him also.
The respondents filed further supplementary counter affidavit on 24.09.2024 wherein they have stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 that vide Notification No.254(7-A) dated 17.07.2010, the age of superannuation of Doctors/Teachers 9 2025:JHHC:35390 was increased from 60 years to 62 years and vide Notification No.283(7-A) dated 23.07.2011, the age of superannuation of Doctors/Teachers was increased from 62 years to 65 years. However, in paragraph 8 they had stated that the enhancement of age vide Resolution No.36(9) dated 25.01.2018 was with respect to doctors of Academic Cadre.
12. By taking such stand, the Respondents have tried to now concede that the petitioner would otherwise be entitled to continue in service upto the age of 65 years but not upto the age of 67 years. If such submission is accepted, then also, the action on the part of the respondents in retrospectively superannuating the petitioner with effect from 31.12.2013 i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years was illegal.
13. This apart, such submission in per se discriminatory, inasmuch as, the members of Medical Teaching Cadre cannot be discriminated on the ground of allowing MBBS and Non- MBBS Teachers, more so when the rules prevalent at the relevant time permitted for equal treatment and equal opportunity of promotion.
14. The Petitioner had also filed another supplementary rejoinder bringing to the notice of this Court filing of W.P. (S) No. 3534 of 2009 whereby cancellation of the order of promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Associate Professor 10 2025:JHHC:35390 with effect from 5th of July 1988 was challenged. The said cancellation was also on the pretext that the Petitioner was neither an MBBS Doctor nor having any Ph.D. qualification. The said writ application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2011 and the order of recall/cancellation of promotion dated 29th July 2019 was quashed and the Petitioner was held to be entitled to continue in the promoted post of Associate Professor on the basis of the orders passed by the Governor of the State (Chancellor of the Universities) and the Petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits to be calculated by the Respondents.
15. It is further relevant to mention here that the said order was challenged by the respondents before Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 437 of 2012 and the said appeal has also been dismissed by a judgment dated 12th of January 2023 holding the Petitioner entitled for all benefits of promotion and continuance in service which was otherwise cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner was not having the qualification of MBBS.
16. Having regards to the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition requires interference for the following reasons: 11
2025:JHHC:35390
(i) The notifications as contained in Annexure 6, 6/1 and 6/2 apply to all teachers in the medical education cadre and it is not permissible for the State Government to discriminate the petitioner and deprive him of the benefits of extension of age on the pretext that the petitioner did not possess the Degree of MBBS.
(ii) The competent authority having allowed the petitioner to continue in service on the basis of the enhancement of age of superannuation vide Annexures 6, 6/1 and 6/2 could not have subsequently seven years thereafter made the petitioner to superannuate with effect from 31.12.2013, that too without service of any show-
cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing.
(iii) Vide Annexure 14, the petitioner was called by the respondent no.2 with all supporting documents regarding his claim for the benefits under the DACP, but instead of considering the same, the respondent proceeded to direct for retrospectively superannuation of the petitioner with effect from the date of his attainment of age of 60 years which action is not only violative of the principles of 12 2025:JHHC:35390 natural justice but also otherwise wholly illegal and contrary to the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time.
(iv) Law regarding recovery of benefits is well settled by now. The petitioner was granted benefit of extension by the respondents and the respondents took work from the petitioner until the issuance of the memorandum dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure 16) and, therefore, the benefits so earned by the petitioner by discharging his duties for the period 31.12.2013 to 03.07.2019 cannot be sought to be recovered. Such recovery is otherwise not permissible in the eyes of law and recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchayat & Rural Development Department and Others v. Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2042, have held in paragraph 9 as under and reiterated that in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud, recovery is impermissible: -
"9. This makes it clear that the Courts below were correct in holding that there was no justification for the appellants having not paid the dues rightly belonging to the respondent to him even after the passage of almost three years after the retirement. We may also observe that there was no occasion whatsoever for the Appellant to have conducted re-fixation of pay after retirement of the Respondent and then proceed to recover the excess amount from the retiral dues payable to the latter. This is a well-settled position in law. A Bench of 3 learned Judges in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar4, held as follows:
13
2025:JHHC:35390 "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered.
But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529], Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar [(2006) 11 SCC 492 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508], Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh [(2006) 8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur [(2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394].
(emphasis supplied)
59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. ..."
The exceptional scenarios provided in the judgment extracted supra undoubtedly are not of application in the present case."
17. In view of the above discussions, this Court hold that the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as has been sought for in the instant case and accordingly, the Notification No.270(9) dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure 15); issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and 14 2025:JHHC:35390 Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
As a result, the order passed by the Principal, MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur vide letter No.MC/E- 34/2019 dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure 16), is also quashed and set aside.
The Respondents in such circumstances are liable to return the entire monetary benefits recovered from the petitioner, treat the petitioner to be in service till the attainment of age of 67 years and to extend all consequential benefits including retiral benefits on the basis thereof.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
18. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 Amardeep/-
N.A.F.R. Uploaded 27/11/2025 15